[RC5] DES-II-3 [LONG] [Repost]

David Taylor dtaylor at nildram.co.uk
Tue Sep 1 17:16:33 EDT 1998


> -----Original Message-----
> From: owner-rc5 at lists.distributed.net
> [mailto:owner-rc5 at lists.distributed.net]On Behalf Of Raymond Tant
> Sent: 30 August 1998 15:42
> To: rc5 at lists.distributed.net
> Subject: Re: [RC5] DES-II-3 [LONG] [Repost]
>
>

> Why not make the main proxy network bigger?
> Or at least a stand by proxy network for DES-ii-3,4 ...
> How many would you need to beep up the proxy network to handle something
> like you described?
> This would push some responsibility down the chain a little bit,
> but I know there is some hard core RC5 crackers ready to do something
else.
> To help with the proxy network overload, you could stagger the actual
> proxies out, really less reliable uploads to less reliable, less reliable
> up loads to reliable, reliable uploads to main.
> But I would assume this is what is happening with the personal proxies.

Increasing the proxy network could work, but there would still be a very
large load on them if every client working suddenly connected at the same
time, so it probably isn't the best solution (although, it is probably
the easiest).

> (NEXT: big change of topic!)
> >
> >These blocks are then distributed (keeping a lot spare so clients
> >that lose the blocks don't muck it up).
>
> Is there a current way to track who is losing blocks?  Not to
> point fingers
> but to fix holes - I have  been running for about 90 days and I personally
> have lost about 900 blocks all in one failed personal proxy adventure
> (let me make it clear, it was MY fault), anyway, I know everyone loses
> blocks but is there a mechanism to track out/in.  It could expose
> holes for
> us to fix!
> Is there a way to track out going blocks to users is what I'm asking - of
> course this doubles the stats machine work load, the proxies
> also. But would
> it be worth it to see if blocks are being lost - which means time is being
> wasted redoing blocks.

What I ment by lose blocks, I ment mainly people who connected, downloaded
blocks
and didnt take part in DES for some reason or another, not necesarily the
redone
blocks, although that is another issue..

There isn't really much we can do to stop people losing blocks, all we can
do
is try to make sure there are always enough blocks to give to people, until
we find the key.


> > With the current set-up we may
> >.....unless the key happens to be in the first 3-4%.
> >
> Would starting somewhere other than the end or beginning be against D.nets
> rules?
> just asking - don't shoot me.

I doubt it is against D.Net's 'rules' (the RC5-64 keyspace is divided up
into
256 2^54 subspaces, which we are doing in a random (or at least semi-random)
way.

However, if we started 25% through the keyspace the key would have to be in
the
first 25-29% of the keyspace.

It doesn't matter WHERE we start, the key must be in the first 4% or so of
the
keyspace we do.

Of course, this is all irrelevant if D.Net decides not to bother with
DES-II-3
which is very possible, as it would require reworking everything to possibly
win $10k...

David Taylor
dtaylor at nildram.co.uk

--
To unsubscribe, send 'unsubscribe rc5' to majordomo at lists.distributed.net
rc5-digest subscribers replace rc5 with rc5-digest



More information about the rc5 mailing list